Unsorted FBI Documents

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report
For CDRU # 450 Case File # 95-277201 .

Materia] Examiner: Malone fROI

Remarks:

No transcript. Guilty plea .

1

CRM - 9853

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

A re a (s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber

Review commenced at: 9:45 AM (Time), 03/13/2001 (Date)

File#: 95-277201

Laboratory #(s): 70224004

Examiner(s) & Symbols

Reviewed Not Reviewed

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

RQ

Xo

□

□

□

□

Trial testimony transcripts) of:

Materials Reviewed

Testimony Date(s)

Pages:

Laboratory Report(s):

Laboratory Number: 70224004

Laboratory Number:
Laboratory Number:

Date: Apr 30, 1987

Date:

Date:

Examiner Bench Notes of:

RQ

Laboratory Number: 70224004

Page

1

Initials:

of

CRM - 9854

Was any other material reviewed? Xo Yes □ No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: Submitting agency letter (not dated )

Results of Review

File U: 95-277201 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Ql, Q2, K1

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1 ) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination^)?

□ Yes o No X □ Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory reports) supported and adequately documented in

the bench notes? □ Yes X □ No □ Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

Xo

Transcript not available.

3)

Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)?

□ Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

4)

Testimony consistent with the bench notes?

d Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

S)

Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise?

□ Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

Page 2 of 3

Initials:

Comments

(Set forth by above question if applicable.

Use “Additional Comments" Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-277201

HI : With microscopic hair comparison, even with the best notes, there is no way to determine the comparison

was performed correctly.

#2: The examination results set forth in the laboratory report are supported by the bench notes, but the

documentation is marginally adequate. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil. RQ uses

abbreviations to indicate the microscopic characteristics of the hair. These abbreviations are difficult to interpret.

The hair matches were apparently verified by a second hair examiner.

Review completed at:

10:00 AM (Time), 03/13/2001

(Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour):

0:15 hours

1 hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review
are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 3 pages.

7

(Signature)

03/13/2001

(Date)

Page

of

Initials:

9 1720/

VfAM

*1 Q 3. 2 *4 GO ^ ^ft/rc/ i^'3o~P7

QcLiAX*- . k^Aci rn^c- 1 ( /*J CPI^gJI (. Kacuon. "f

SU.&P

C^v^-) Micro VMCT-/A4

T^c +v wjfes

1^7 022*4 (WV " /V O 5> c -'^C» //w//.'^K

frXAfo AJdTcrS A/ll 2>~Je, j ah r//>t,j

U<rC-

<rf

w

cl 6 4)/<r i^iCv/

»

T i’X't 5

0 l I £/{" £> f-f 44 -^rtj is C (D /)c^4«4 jSaaM it/j — fc / C

Co^t /v ufC

7

o fit ^fa/ty

6>y.-.{ Mr

f t

/e*\

C StKaLf -fo |( ’/-ai) - /C| ( tf)

A/c) yYaus cp-,yf'

CRM-9855